[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1JzTwx-0001bw-DT@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:52:35 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: hch@...radead.org
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 11/14] vfs: move executable checking into ->permission()
> > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
> >
> > For execute permission on a regular files we need to check if file has
> > any execute bits at all, regardless of capabilites.
> >
> > This check is normally performed by generic_permission() but was also
> > added to the case when the filesystem defines its own ->permission()
> > method. In the latter case the filesystem should be responsible for
> > performing this check.
> >
> > So create a helper function exec_permission() that checks returns
> > -EACCESS if MAY_EXEC is present, the inode is a regular file and no
> > execute bits are present in inode->i_mode.
> >
> > Call this function from filesystems which don't call
> > generic_permission() from their ->permission() methods and which
> > aren't already performing this check. Also remove the check from
> > dentry_permission().
> >
> > The new code should be equivalent to the old.
>
> There's no point moving this into the filesystem.
Yes, there is. Fuse already has special code, because it need to
refresh the attributes first before doing the "are there any x bits in
mode?" check. And because there's some duplication, I've introduced a
helper. That's exactly how we handle this sort of thing.
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists